A-CAPP Paper Series

THE SOCIOTECHNICAL EVOLUTION OF PRODUCT COUNTERFEITING: HOW SOCIAL MEDIA, SOCIAL NETWORKS, AND SOCIAL COMMERCE ARE “E-SOCIALIZING” PRODUCT COUNTERFEITING

Jay Kennedy, Mae O’Dell, and Lucy Ching, 2021

OVERVIEW

Changes in the nature and structure of product counterfeiting schemes are largely driven by technological and social advances, as well as increased access to transportation and global markets. Each of these advancements open up new opportunities for brands, consumers, and counterfeiters. For instance, advances in ship building and colonial exploration exposed peoples from various parts of the world to artwork, crafts and commercial goods not available in their native countries. As demand for these goods increased new trade routes, commercial traders, retailer organizations, and counterfeiting schemes proliferated. Commercial trade centers and physical retail establishments made counterfeiting an ‘in-person’ business as consumers traveled to markets and shops to purchase physical goods. Yet, over the past two decades the rise of the Internet has pushed counterfeiting into an increasingly virtual activity.

One of the most influential factors driving changes in the product counterfeiting landscape are technological advances related to the Internet, which have continually redefined the structure of transnational counterfeiting schemes. In recent years advances in computing technology have been the key drivers of shifts in global product counterfeiting networks. Consumers’ ability to access a seemingly limitless range of products and brands has never been as prolific as it is at this point, and the coming years will only see this access increase.

Internet connected mobile devices and mobile e-commerce applications are putting seemingly unending shopping opportunities at consumers’ fingertips. Technological advances in machine learning and artificial intelligence have supported the rapid growth of social media platforms, as well as the targeted advertising that drives revenue growth for many of these platforms. Counterfeiters have not been oblivious to the benefits offered by social media platforms and the growing trend of social consumerism.

Given the ways in which social media is shaping human interaction and behavior, it is fair to say that the leading edge of technologically based changes in counterfeiting schemes is not related to hardware or software advances, but rather to cultural and social shifts in the ways in which consumers engage with each other through social media platforms.

This paper explores the development of social commerce as a function of social media networks that are the primary contributors to socially driven changes in product counterfeiting schemes. Social media-driven counterfeiting schemes leverage the power of user generated content (UGC) to influence consumer behavior. The influence of UGC is juxtaposed to that of brand generated content (BGC), which co-exists with, and at times can seem indistinguishable from, UGC.

We argue that social media and social commerce are the most important non-technical drivers of significant and lasting consumer-centered shifts in the product counterfeiting landscape. Because these shifts are social in nature and derive from fluid interactions amongst social media users, it is much more difficult to determine how they will impact counterfeiting schemes in the future. Yet, it is clear that the impact of social media platforms on counterfeiting schemes will be finite and future challenges to brand protection will come from consumer-focused socio-technical innovations that have yet to be developed. It is therefore essential that we begin to study and truly understand the nature and impact of socio-technical applications that have the potential to affect consumer behavior, influence perceptions about counterfeits and create new and more sophisticated opportunities for counterfeiters.

Social Media and Social Networks

SOCIAL MEDIA AND SOCIAL NETWORKS

The advent of the Internet, the birth of e-commerce and the digitization of music, film, art, books and other documents ushered in a new age of consumer-driven intellectual property rights infringement. Consumers no longer needed to travel to flea markets, alleys, corner stores or street corners to buy bootleg CDs, counterfeit goods, copies of pre-release movies and other items – they needed only to search the Internet, which they could do from the comfort of their homes. As more and more people joined the online revolution networks of Internet users began sharing intellectual property with each other in ways that violated IP owners’ rights. For example, in the early and mid-2000s file sharing services posed significant challenges to the protection of copyrights in the digital space. Networks of Internet users, typically younger users seeking to share protected content with both friends and strangers, used file sharing services to distribute protected content freely throughout the web. The quality of files and file sharing sites varied, and users quickly determined which sites and contributors posted the highest quality files. Today, illegal streaming services continue to challenge copyright owners through practices that were built upon the initial social movements around file sharing, which represented a substantial shift in the age-old practice of copyright infringement.

Social media platforms like Twitter, Instagram, Reddit and TikTok are for product counterfeiting what file sharing sites were for copyright infringement two decades ago. Social media has created a significant social shift in the ways in which trademark rights are being violated. As with the file sharing shift that preceded it, the social shift in product counterfeiting schemes is being driven by the adoption and use of new technologies, and socio-technical applications, by the younger generations of society (e.g., Gen Z and Millennials). These generations have grown up with social media as a space for individuals to engage in all forms of interpersonal communication. At any given moment, an individual can take to social media to converse with peers about nearly anything in a short and concise manner that holds attention and gives great value to the content being shared. This form of conversation is coming to replace lengthier, more drawn-out interactions that have traditionally taken place via telephone or e-mail (Subramanian, 2017).

As interactions between networks of users become more prevalent and social media applications become a preferred means of communication for many, it may become easier for individuals to be influenced by other users’ opinions or attitudes. Users that have the greatest ability to affect other users’ attitudes, beliefs and behavior are generally classified as “social media influencers”. Research on these influencers has found that within small networks they have great power to affect the attitudes and behavior of their followers. This is because the closeness of the network builds more personal connections that make the influencer seem more like a friend than a celebrity (Kay, Mulcahy, & Parkinson, 2020). Importantly, when this perception of familiarity translates into the influencer seeming likeable, attractive or “similar” to the follower, it is much more likely that the influencer will have an impact on the follower’s purchase behavior (Taillon et al., 2020).

Because each social media platform possesses its own “culture, language, idioms, and styles” (Haenlein et al., 2020), influencers must adapt their interaction style and messaging as they engage across platforms. This affects the types of product-focused messages that are delivered across each type of platform. For example, both YouTube and TikTok are video-based platforms, yet YouTube is used for longer videos, and it allows for AdSense (making money from ads placed within their videos). Alternatively, TikTok’s film-based approach only allows users to publish short videos that are up to 60 seconds long. This affords many smaller businesses, such as those who use Etsy, Shopify, and Big Cartel, unique opportunities to create low-cost advertising strategies that promote their products and business, which can be a substantial driver of future sales. Importantly, the wide age range of TikTok users means that younger consumers often times interact with, and are ultimately influenced by, older content creators whom the younger users may perceive to be role models.

THE GROWTH OF SOCIAL COMMERCE

Social commerce is any form of retail commerce or trade that takes place via social media platforms and networking sites (Zhang & Benyoucef, 2016). While these activities have been a recognized part of the e-commerce landscape since 2005, in 2017 nearly 46 million users in the U.S. made at least one purchase through a social media application. In 2020 that number had grown to just over 80 million users and by 2023 it is estimated that over 100 million people in the U.S. will make purchases via social media (https://www.emarketer.com/content/social-commerce-2021). Globally, the COVID-19 pandemic boosted the rate of social commerce use by 31.4%, with China leading the way in terms of consumer adoption as Chinese social commerce transactions make up 13% of all e-commerce retail sales in that country (Chu, 2021). In terms of sales dollars, social commerce is expected to reach US$84 billion annually by 2024 (Batchelor, 2021).

Social commerce leverages online social networks to help users advertise, buy and sell goods and services, processes that are heavily influenced by users’ ratings of products and sellers, as well as the engagement of online communities dedicated to certain products or brands (https://marketbusinessnews.com/financial-glossary/social-commerce-definition-meaning/). Successful social commerce requires high levels of consumer engagement, which in turn affects the promotion of products, sellers and marketplaces. Research on social commerce has found that actively engaging with social networks in ways that affect customer reviews, and the active promotion of a product, brand or marketplace can significantly influence consumer buying behavior (Han & Trimi, 2017).

Over the past 16 years there has been substantial growth in social commerce, which has been driven by increasing adoption of social media sites, a growing number of social media and networking platform options, and changes in the ways in which consumers interact via social media. A defining feature of social commerce is the need for product sellers to develop deep relationships and connections with consumers, and to use those seller-to-consumer relationships to drive seller-focused consumer-to-consumer relationships. This is because social commerce is built upon consumers sharing, often times in unfiltered ways, their experiences with and perceptions of products and brands. In fact, the word-of-mouth interactions that define social network interactions related to social commerce are essential to a successful social commerce strategy (Busalim & Hussin, 2016). Accordingly, social commerce offers consumers a meaningful way to contribute to their social networks as the consumer is able to share information that can benefit others’ purchase decisions (Wang, Lin & Spencer, 2019).

Firms looking to take advantage of the rapid rise of social commerce have been advised by some observers to focus on lower-priced offerings that are in high demand and which readily meet consumers’ needs (https://www.smartinsights.com/ecommerce/ecommerce-strategy/social-commerce-trends/). Interestingly, research has found that consumers shopping through social media platforms are incredibly price sensitive except for when the user displays a high degree of loyalty to a particular platform (Yahia, Al-Neama & Kerbache, 2018). Unfortunately, this same logic is what counterfeiters grasp on to when marketing their illicit goods. Given the tremendous revenue potential to be found through social media channels, neither brands nor counterfeiters can afford to ignore the growing influence of social commerce and the consumer trends that are redefining consumer interactions online.

FOUR CONCERNING SOCIAL MEDIA-DRIVEN TRENDS

As part of an ongoing A-CAPP Center research project exploring the nature and extent of online product counterfeiting schemes, we have been investigating social media-based interactions that center on consumer complicity, or the willing purchase of counterfeit products. Through a series of studies of the conversations and posts made by sellers, buyers, ‘aficionados’, affiliate marketers, and social media influencers on TikTok, Instagram, Reddit and YouTube, we have identified four unique social media-driven product counterfeiting trends. These trends reflect the socio-technical nature of modern counterfeiting schemes and highlight the need to better understand how emerging technologies affect human interactions in the virtual and physical world, the proliferation of e-commerce and illicit trade, and consumer decision making related to the purchase of counterfeit goods.

01

A Rise in Ethical or Sanctioned Deviance

Shifting perspectives on counterfeit goods, particularly the differentiations developing for some consumers related to the “quality” of certain counterfeits over others (for example, that reps and dupes are better than counterfeits), may have additional implications for society. Younger consumers who come to see fewer drawbacks to counterfeit goods may also be more likely to engage in what they feel is ethical or sanctioned deviance related to the purchase of counterfeit goods. This can occur when consumers recognize the illegal or deviant nature of their actions (promoting, selling, or purchasing counterfeit goods), yet justify these actions as an ethical/legitimate attack on capitalistic culture, larger corporations, or the wealthy.

The “eat the rich” movement is not something new to society, as the phrase is generally attributed the work of 18th century French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (Lyfepyle, 2021). Since this time the phrase has been used in reference to class-based conflicts that target the wealthy. In an article in GQ magazine, author Talia Lavin (2019) states “… the digital generation has developed a stewing sense of class resentment and taken that to social media.” This class resentment has taken hold in the form of intellectual property rights infringements that are justified by users as ethical and legitimate because they rebuke or bite back at the wealthy and privileged whom they view as perpetuating class inequalities. The “eat the rich” mentality would say that knowingly buying counterfeit goods is “okay” so long as the goal is to harm wealthy corporations that exploit society. Purchasing a counterfeit purse allows one to throw-off class-based labels and constraints, while at the same time causing financial harm to wealthy corporations.

The depth of this growing trend is highlighted by an example of copyright infringement, where social media has been an essential channel used to influence people against purchasing a particular product or brand. For example, after Emily Duncan (author of Wicked Saints) was found to have bullied minority authors in a group chat and put anti-semitic images in their young adult book series, the online book community made a point to not purchase or read their books. In some instances, individuals in these online book communities have encouraged their followers to read ePubs or pirated copies of the author’s books so that they can avoid supporting the author financially while still being able to enjoy their works. Some individuals who promote this type of media consumption are not aware of the legalities of their actions, but others are fully aware and say that they will “only break the law” because of what the author has done.

When users are told that this behavior hurts the publishing industry overall, they will often question the publishing industry itself. Many believe that if publishers are distributing books with racist or xenophobic undertones, hurting the industry will lead to positive change, not realizing that hurting the publishing industry also hurts diverse authors who are trying to get their books published and distributed. An influencer who wants to express their discontent at a perceived injustice can facilitate and influence others’ deviance and illegal behavior all in the name of “social justice”.
Consumers who hold the “eat the rich” mentality or otherwise have issues with large corporations, particularly luxury brands, may see counterfeiting as an acceptable form of social deviance. Within the social networks of such likeminded individuals there is reinforcement of these attitudes, and users will utilize their individual social media activities to promote counterfeiting as a form of community sanctioned deviance. Once this occurs, warnings about the dangers of counterfeits, the illegality of selling counterfeits and the fact that counterfeiting violates corporate intellectual property rights are likely to be less impactful given the fact that the messaging originates from the very groups these users are seeking to affect.

02

Changing Perceptions of Counterfeit Goods

            As suggested by the changing vocabulary around counterfeit products, social media trends involving the identification of a product as a rep, dupe or counterfeit are impacting consumers’ perceptions about counterfeit goods. Perhaps the most overt examples of social media activity affecting perceptions of counterfeit goods have taken place on Reddit forums dedicated to “rep” products. Forums such as RepWatch, RepTime, Repsneakers, and DesignerReps, among others, have long provided users with a place to share information about counterfeit products, including evaluations of goods and sellers, and information about how to assess the quality of counterfeit items. These forums are targeted toward complicit consumers seeking high quality counterfeit items, those who are collectors of counterfeit goods, and the sellers and distributors of counterfeit items.
The environment that these pages create normalizes the buying of counterfeits. Users are often attempting to find the very best counterfeits available, and these sites promote an information sharing network that supports these activities. The forums on Reddit are optimal locations for counterfeiters because they can openly engage with a willing audience of enthusiasts about counterfeit products within an environment that welcomes fake products and gives credibility to high-quality illicit goods. These forums also provide a very unique environment wherein consumer perceptions about counterfeits are shaped through continual interactions and information sharing that legitimizes the manufacturing, distribution, sale and purchase of counterfeit goods.

Other social media platforms are also helping to change consumer perceptions about counterfeits, yet they are doing so in ways that are much more accessible and appear to be having a greater influence on younger generations. Influencers and affiliate marketers that promote counterfeit items, and who are prominent on sites like Instagram and TikTok, are helping to shift perspectives about counterfeits, as well as consumers’ acceptance of counterfeits. Dupes and reps are promoted through these sites, as well as through YouTube videos that unbox counterfeit items ordered from sites such as DHGate.com, giving reviews of counterfeits designed to aid users in purchasing “good” fakes. Compared to Reddit forums, counterfeiters are less overt on YouTube, Instagram and TikTok as they operate through influencers, particularly those with large numbers of followers.

Counterfeiters have been using influencers in the same way as legitimate companies, leveraging their status and gravitas in ways that affect consumer decision making. The use of unboxing videos, where individuals will show off how they found a product, how it arrives, the type of packaging to expect, and give a review of the quality of the item, helps to destigmatize negative perceptions about counterfeits. It also helps that the word “counterfeit” is not used. In some cases, the influencers who post these videos will indicate that they “do not support” the manufacture of fakes and the violation of IP rights, yet this seems like a thinly-veiled attempt to escape liability for promoting illegal goods. Importantly, the videos or reviews will almost always include a link to a site where the product can be purchased. This is always found when affiliate marketers are posting such videos, but also occurs when users or influencers simply post about their replica collections or recent purchases.

What the individuals on Reddit, TikTok, Instagram, YouTube and other sites are ultimately doing, whether knowingly or unknowingly, is leveraging their followers’ and networks’ trust to influence perceptions about illicit goods. Research on consumer trust and social commerce has found that trust has a significant impact on purchase decisions made through social media platforms (Kim & Park, 2013). Additionally, high levels of trust assist with the adoption of attitudes and beliefs that dispel the negative perceptions about counterfeit goods. Social media’s role in changing perceptions about counterfeit goods helps to alleviate consumers’ worries about purchasing counterfeit items and raises their outlook on counterfeit goods generally. These attitudes and beliefs may not be constrained solely to the products promoted through a consumer’s social media network but may spill over and impact the user’s general outlook on all counterfeit goods.

03

A Shifting Lexicon Around Counterfeit Goods

Traditionally, counterfeit goods have been referred to by a variety of terms, such as “fakes”, “knock-off” and “replica”. These terms are often synonymous with the term counterfeit and consumers generally understand that each of these terms can be used interchangeably to describe a counterfeit item. What we and others have identified regarding counterfeits sold on social media sites is that the lexicon, or language, relevant to counterfeit goods is shifting. Not only are different terms being used in social media, but qualitative differences have emerged among the terms that reflect consumers’ perspectives on the quality of the items being discussed and sold.
           
As described in a recent report issued by the American Apparel and Footwear Association (2021), “dupe influencers” have become an essential component of counterfeiting schemes that market and sell “designer dupes” or “reps”.
The terms “dupe” and “rep” are shorthand for duplicate and replica and are often used by social media users when discussing counterfeit products. However, the word “dupe” actually has a double connotation as it can refer to a counterfeit version of a product or a legitimate alternative to another legitimate item. Both versions of the term appear to be prolific on Instagram, TikTok and YouTube, with the latter meaning (referring to another legitimate product) being used in a wide number of videos intended to help consumers find alternatives to more expensive items. These videos highlight a lower-priced product that has similar characteristics, functionality or features as a higher priced, typically luxury, item.

Not all dupes are aiming to be a cheaper alternative to a more expensive product. Rather, some dupes are lesser-known brands that can be used as a substitute for more well-known, yet not much more expensive, products. For example, recent trends around makeup dupes have shown the value and quality of private labeled makeup sold at drug stores and retail chains that have been gaining notoriety in recent years. These products are being formulated with ingredients and through processes that mirror larger brands, which means that these “dupe” products often times perform just as well as traditional makeup products. There is a large YouTube community dedicated specifically to legitimate makeup dupes.

At the same time that many social media users are using the term dupe to describe legitimate low-priced or less well-known products there are many others on social media who are using the term to describe counterfeit goods. Social media influencers, or “dupe influencers”, post videos comparing the counterfeit version of an item to a legitimate item to show how similar the two items actually are. In doing so, these influencers have begun to shift the meaning of the words dupe, rep and counterfeit to create a type of quality hierarchy where at the top end are found high quality dupes and reps, followed by various lower qualities of dupes and reps and ultimately, at the bottom, are found counterfeit items. This distinction is incredibly important. The term counterfeit is coming to define the lowest quality of fake goods, something to be avoided in favor of higher quality reps or dupes.

04

E-Socialization: The Social Learning of Consumer Complicity

            The shifting vocabulary around counterfeits, changing perceptions about the quality of counterfeits and the negative stigma associated with these illicit goods, as well as a growing trend of consumer complicity as a form of sanctioned deviance, combine to create an environment where intellectual property rights violations are becoming an openly accepted and learned behavior. Crime and deviance, like many other forms of behavior, are typically learned through direct or vicarious experiences. Accordingly, we can explore social media’s impact on consumer complicity through the lens of Social Learning Theory, which is a criminological theory that describes the conditions under which an individual learns the techniques, motivations and rationalizations needed to commit deviant acts (Akers, 1996).
Social learning theory (SLT) is comprised of four elements that in the context of social media highlight a process we term “e-socialization”, or the learning and reinforcement of consumer complicity (a deviant act). SLT is heavily influenced by symbolic interactionism, a concept that explains how people derive shared meaning from social interactions that involve the exchange of subjectively interpreted definitions, symbols and actions. Social networks can therefore create subjective, network specific meanings for nearly all aspects of social engagements. According to SLT, deviance is taught by some and learned by others through four interrelated processes: Differential Association, Definitions, Differential Reinforcement, and Imitation.

The data we have gathered from our investigations of social media platforms align with each element of SLT and when combined describe a process of e-socialization.

Differential Association

A concept that captures the fact that people are attached to multiple different groups, some of which will espouse deviant ideals and others that will not. It is within these groups that we learn appropriate and acceptable behavior, and wherein we find support or rebuke for our actions. The more closely attached we are to a group and the more we identify with its purpose and network of members, the more influence that group can have over our attitudes and behavior. The social media influencers and users that we described above are members of groups that promote the purchase of counterfeit goods and reinforce the value of such purchases by helping to remove the social stigma of counterfeits, provide rationalizations for purchasing counterfeit goods, and support users in their search for counterfeits online. The networks and engagements that occur online may be different from those that occur in person, further creating a distinctive and differential group association influencing consumer complicity.

Definitions

The attitudes or meaning that individuals attach to particular behaviors. These are developed within the group and align most closely to the concept of symbolic interactionism. Definitions can be broad or specific, focusing either on widely-held social norms, values or beliefs, or more finitely on particular sets of actions or behaviors. Definitions can be either pro-social or deviant and most groups contain a mix of both, although it must be noted that these are subjective interpretations. The qualitative distinctions that are made between various qualities of reps and dupes, and the term counterfeit reflect users’ and groups’ use of varying definitions. While the words themselves span social and group boundaries, their specific usage and meaning can be highly contextual. In many cases, the interpretation of a definition is influenced by the specific situation or context in which the definition is developed and used.

Differential Reinforcement

Occurs when we compare the actual outcomes of our actions against our expected outcomes. Generally, when outcomes meet or exceed our expectations we are more likely to repeat an action; we are less likely to do so when outcomes do not meet our expectations. Social media provides users with tangible examples of outcomes they can expect to receive – not only in terms of the products the individual will receive, but also in terms of the person’s standing or status within their network. Importantly, we have identified several worrying patterns in users’ interactions regarding counterfeit goods that highlight the impact of differential reinforcement. For example, users who post about the illegality of selling counterfeits are often met with criticism from other users, as are individuals who speak up about the potential harm to brands and society. These users are often attacked by others in the network for reasons such as “not supporting small businesses”. These attacks show in very real terms the impact of sanctioned or ethical deviance. Relatedly, we have observed interaction patterns on Reddit forums that support a form of differential reinforcement that centers on the ethics of user engagement and interaction. Specifically, users who attempt to pass off a counterfeit item as something genuine are heavily attacked and ostracized, while users who openly promote high-quality fakes are praised for their contributions to the group. In essence, faking the origin of a fake product represents a severe violation of group norms, yet supporting intellectual property rights violations is acceptable practice.

Imitation

The act of modeling behavior that has been observed within one’s peer group. From the standpoint of SLT the likelihood of imitation, as well as the frequency with which a behavior will be imitated, is heavily influenced by how deeply an individual is invested in the person being modeled. Within social networks the vast sway held by social media influencers can generate substantial motivations to imitate observed behavior. Imitation is also more likely to occur when rationalizations for questionable behavior are perceived to be valid, and when positive rewards appear to be easily obtainable. Social media provides users with all the requisite skills and knowledge to imitate complicit behavior, including the specific websites to visit and the techniques for evaluating the quality of counterfeit goods. Most importantly, social media helps to glamorize consumer complicity, thereby increasing the appeal of displaying one’s imitation to their larger social network and beyond. The process of indoctrinating users into complicit behaviors, which results from virtual social learning processes (differential association, definitions, differential reinforcement and imitation) that occur within the context of social media networks. While consumer complicity can also be learned through social processes in the physical world, these processes are inherently distinct from the unique interactions, reinforcements and learning processes that define e-socialization. Given the proliferation of social media, its importance among younger generations of consumers, and the ease at which users can access learning processes within and beyond their networks, it is essential that the field of brand protection/anti-counterfeiting adapt strategies to mitigate existing and emerging social patterns that support sustained increases in transnational product counterfeiting schemes.

Accordingly, E-Socialization is the process of indoctrinating users into complicit behaviors, which results from virtual social learning processes (differential association, definitions, differential reinforcement and imitation) that occur within the context of social media networks. While consumer complicity can also be learned through social processes in the physical world, these processes are inherently distinct from the unique interactions, reinforcements and learning processes that define e-socialization. Given the proliferation of social media, its importance among younger generations of consumers, and the ease at which users can access learning processes within and beyond their networks, it is essential that the field of brand protection/anti-counterfeiting adapt strategies to mitigate existing and emerging social patterns that support sustained increases in transnational product counterfeiting schemes.

ADDRESSING THE E-SOCIALIZATION PROBLEM

Impacting consumer decision-making is one of the most difficult things for a brand owner, government, or industry group to accomplish. The use of messaging campaigns and widely-disseminated information intended to alert consumers’ conscience to the dangers of counterfeit goods are likely to only be mildly effective. Yet, these campaigns are likely to be the least effective among consumers who willing seek out counterfeit products or those who are influenced by an e-socialization process. E-socialization is itself a type of messaging campaign that thrives because of the sway of peer networks and social media influencers, which make pro-counterfeiting messages significantly more impactful. As such, using traditional anti-counterfeiting messaging approaches are likely to have little impact on changing consumer behavior or attitudes.

<strong>Understand how network-based messaging affects consumer behavior and perceptions of deviance</strong>

Social media platforms have given counterfeiters access to a new generation of consumers, as well as new tools to bring their illicit goods to the public. The changes in language usage and certain consumers’ perspectives on counterfeit products that have been identified through our work and that of others highlights the force and importance of narratives that spread information through social media channels. Brand owners, platforms, law enforcement and other stakeholders must utilize social media in ways that allow them to quickly identify changes in informational patterns, language usage and meaning. Additionally, social media must be used to understand how networks are impacting consumer decision making, as well as disseminating information and misinformation that is reflective of shifting social trends related to counterfeit goods. While these efforts will not, in and of themselves, turn complicit consumers away from counterfeit goods, they are essential to the development of effective anti-counterfeiting activities that are intended to address e-socialization processes.

<strong>Explore the guardianship and oversight potential of social media platforms</strong>

Social media platforms have recently taken great steps to control abusive and harmful language and to stop abusive interactions taking place on their sites. The general social good that is promulgated by these activities must be harnessed to encourage platforms to adopt a similar approach to counterfeiting taking place on their sites. The sophisticated computer algorithms that drive social media platforms can be effectively utilized to flag conversations about illicit goods if they are informed with up-to-date information regarding the lexicon used to discuss counterfeit goods. However, it must also be remembered that counterfeiters and other illicit actors will seek out the paths of least resistance. This means that an uncoordinated approach to social media platform oversight and guardianship will create a situation where certain sites are viewed as unfavorable places for counterfeiters, while other sites will be counterfeiting hot spots. While concentration of nefarious activity to a small number of sites offers certain advantages, it also may mean that counterfeiters will adapt their behavior, language and interactions to avoid anti-counterfeiting measures on certain sites, while at the same time operating openly on other sites. Until there is some form of regulatory or self-regulatory environment certain sites will continue to be prime destinations for counterfeiters and complicit consumers.

<strong>Appreciate the substantive differences in the ways in which platforms are used by counterfeiters and consumers</strong>

While changes in the language used to discuss counterfeit goods can create ambiguity about the products a user is discussing, there are instances where counterfeiters are openly engaging with users in overt discussions about fake goods. These conversations, such as those that occur within Reddit forms dedicated to replica goods, offer an ideal opportunity to explore how messaging, socialization and behavior vary as individuals use covert terms and changing language to discuss their activities relative to those who openly use social media to sell, distribute and promote counterfeit goods. While we strongly urge action that focuses on mitigating the spread of counterfeiting e-socialization we also acknowledge the reality of this situation – counterfeiters will always find a way to capitalize on new socio-technical applications. Additionally, the force of consumer complicity will continually provide counterfeiters with the motivation and economic benefits needed to continue their illicit activities. Understanding the various ways in which platform-based differences align with different counterfeiting strategies may lead to the development of more nuanced, and finely tailored, anti-counterfeiting interventions.

References

Akers, R. L. (1996). Is differential association/social learning cultural deviance theory? Criminology, 34(2), 229-247.

American Apparel and Footwear Association. (2021). Dupe Influencers: The Concerning Trend of Promoting Counterfeit Apparel, Footwear, and Accessories on Social Media. Retrieved from: https://www.aafaglobal.org/AAFA/Solutions_Pages/Dupe_Influencers_The_Concerning_Trend_of_Promoting_Counterfeits.aspx.

Batchelor, B. (2021, January 27). E-Tailers: Four social commerce strategies to consider in 2021. Forbes.com. Retrieved from: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesbusinessdevelopmentcouncil/2021/01/27/e-tailers-four-social-commerce-strategies-to-consider-in-2021/?sh=5229d1e565c8.

Busalim, A. H. & Hussin, A. R. C. (2016). Understanding social commerce: A systematic literature review and directions for further research. International Journal of Information Management, 36(6), 1075-1088.

Chu, F. (2021, February 10). Social commerce is leading the future of ecommerce. Retrieved from: https://www.digitalcommerce360.com/2021/02/10/social-commerce-is-leading-the-future-of-ecommerce/

Grigsby, J. L. (2020). Fake Ads: The Influence of Counterfeit Native Ads on Brands and Consumers. Journal of Promotion Management, 26(4), 569–592.

Haenlein, M., Anadol, E., Farnsworth, T., Hugo, H., Hunichen, J., & Welte, D. (2020). Navigating the New Era of Influencer Marketing: How to be Successful on Instagram, TikTok, & Co. California Management Review, 63(1), 5–25.

Han, H., & Trimi, S. (2017). Social commerce design: A framework and application. Journal of theoretical and applied electronic commerce research, 12(3), 50-68.

Kay, S., Mulcahy, R., & Parkinson, J. (2020). When less is more: the impact of macro and micro social media influencers’ disclosure. Journal of Marketing Management, 36(3/4), 248–278.

Kim, S., & Park, H. (2013). Effects of various characteristics of social commerce (s-commerce) on consumers’ trust and trust performance. International Journal of Information Management, 33(2), 318-332.

Lavin, T. (2019). How “eat the Rich” Became the Rallying Cry for the Digital Generation. Retrieved from https://www.gq.com/story/eat-the-rich-digital-generation.

Lyfepyle. (2021). Where the Phrase “Eat the Rich” Originated. Retrieved from: https://www.lyfepyle.com/where-did-the-phrase-eat-the-rich-originate/.

Subramanian, K.R. (2017). Influence of Social Media in Interpersonal Communication. International Journal of Scientific Process and Research, 109(38), 70-75. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kalpathy-Subramanian/publication/319422885_Influence_of_Social_Media_in_Interpersonal_Communication/links/59a96d950f7e9b2790120fea/Influence-of-Social-Media-in-Interpersonal-Communication.pdf

Taillon, B. J., Mueller, S. M., Kowalczyk, C. M., & Jones, D. N. (2020). Understanding the relationships between social media influencers and their followers: the moderating role of closeness. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 29(6), 767–782.

Wang, X., Lin, X., & Spencer, M. K. (2019). Exploring the effects of extrinsic motivation on consumer behaviors in social commerce: Revealing consumers’ perceptions of social commerce benefits. International Journal of Information Management, 45, 163-175.

Yahia, I. B., Al-Neama, N., & Kerbache, L. (2018). Investigating the drivers for social commerce in social media platforms: Importance of trust, social support and the platform perceived usage. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 41, 11-19.

Zhang, K. Z., & Benyoucef, M. (2016). Consumer behavior in social commerce: A literature review. Decision Support Systems, 86, 95-108.